LESSWRONG
LW

All of Rixie's Comments + Replies

Lesswrong 2016 Survey

I have taken the survey.

I feel like this thought experiment is less about how to cleverly communicate to Archimedes all the things that he is obviously wrong about and that we are obviously right about, and more about how to try to recognize the potential mistakes within our own way of thinking, as Archimedes was as certain about his geocentric point of view as we are with our heliocentric one. While I think we're right about heliocentrism at least, there may be other seemingly obvious facts that we take for granted, but that future generations will want to yell at us through a c... (read more)

4ChristianKl10y

Doubting power structures itself isn't that useful it usually doesn't change them.

2013 Less Wrong Census/Survey

Rixie11y290

Yay, survey taken!

I loved the Prisoner's Dilemma at the end, I wonder how that will turn out?

Crisis of Faith

Rixie12y10

I started letting go of my faith when I realized that there really isn't much Bayesian evidence for it. Realizing that the majority of the evidence needed to believe something is used just to isolate that something out of all the other possible beliefs finished it off. But I do have one question: If Jesus wasn't magic, where did the Bible even come from? Lee Strobel "proves" that Jesus died and came back from the dead, but his proofs are based on the Bible. Why was the Bible so widely accepted if there wasn't anything extra-special about Jesus after all?

6Salemicus12y

Some people wrote it down. That's also the Christian story of where the Bible came from. There probably was something extra-special about Jesus, in the sense that he was highly charismatic, or persuasive, and so on. And his followers probably really did think that he'd come back from the dead, or at least that his body had mysteriously vanished. But none of that adds up to magic or divinity. Look at people in the current day - convinced (rightly or wrongly) in the existence of aliens, or homeopathy, or whatever else. "If L. Ron Hubbard wasn't magic, where did Dianetics come from?" Alternatively, consider Joseph Smith. He's far more recent and far better-attested than Jesus, who also had a loyal group of followers who swore blind that they'd seen miracles - even the ones who later broke with him, and who after his death, carried on his teachings and founded a religion with the utmost seriousness and in the face of extreme hardship and sacrifice. Yet chances are you're not a Mormon (or, if you are a Mormon, consider Mohammed ibn Abdullah). Apply the same thinking to Jesus's life as you do to that of Josepth Smith, and see where it takes you.

2Nornagest12y

Well, if you make the assumption that Jesus existed and behaved as described in the New Testament, this reduces to Lewis's trilemma. The criticisms section of that page outlines some of the possible responses. The option I personally find most compelling is that there's plenty of room for distortion and myth-making between Jesus's ministry and the writing of the earliest Christian works we know about: at least four decades [ETA: got this wrong earlier; see downthread], possibly more depending on how generous you're being. Knowing what we do about how myths form, that's more than enough time for the supernaturalism in the Gospels to have accumulated. Look at it this way and it's no longer a question of "lunatic, liar, or Lord"; rather a colossal game of Telephone played between members of a fragmented and frequently persecuted sect, many of whom would have had incentive to play up the significance of the founding events. There are more recent religious innovations that you can look at for comparison: Mormonism, for example, or Rastafarianism. Some have even used this to argue against the historicity of Jesus, although I don't think doing so is necessary to a secular interpretation of the New Testament.

1Ben Pace12y

Asking similar questions about the Quran and various other religion's holy texts, and just general popularity of many cults and things, makes you realise an idea or set of such things has no requirement to be true to be popular. In fact, looking at the self-help section in a bookstore reminds you of this (see Lukeprog's self-help sequence first post). I also believe that Richard Carrier has a book called 'Not the Impossible Faith' which discusses this question, although defo check that if you're thinking of buying for that purpose.

Something to Protect

Rixie12y00

Here I have a question that is slightly unrelated, but I'm looking for a good cognitive science science fair project and I'm having trouble thinking of one that would be not completely impractical for a high-schooler to do, won't take more than a few months, and would be interesting enough to hold people's attention for at least a few minutes before they head off to the physics and medical research projects. No one ever does decent cognitive science projects and I really want to show them that this branch of science can be just as rigorous and awesome as the other ones. Does anyone have any ideas?

Mere Messiahs

Rixie12y10

It's not necessarily solely for the purpose of overcoming bias. He's also telling the truth and letting us see things in a different light.

I think he's saying that atheists should (to a certain extent) honour him, and Christians should believe that he died forever. I'm not familiar with the other religions, but just because someone believes something now, doesn't mean that that will never change. Isn't the whole point of this blog to spread truth around?

The Halo Effect

Rixie12y00

I wonder if this really one hundred percent bias? I hate saying this, but when I moved to a new school 3 years ago I immediately noticed one person that I found extremely unattractive, and he later turned out to be one of the "bad kids", and did measurably bad things with two of his friends that no one besides them did. I don't think it was hindsight, I remember the exact moment when I first saw him and thought that he wasn't that attractive.

Could there possibly be some correlation between attractiveness and some other good qualities?

Evaluability (And Cheap Holiday Shopping)

Rixie12y50

What is 3^^^3? I see it a lot here, why is it special?

CarlShulman12y190

It's a ludicrously large number in Knuth's up-arrow notation used in some posts as an example of a number which is finite, but large enough to ludicrously surpass reasonable finite numbers like the size of the universe, or the number of possible states of a volume the size of the Solar System, or whatever.

Mundane Magic

Rixie12y10

But then you can't just borrow and not give it back.

6DanielLC12y

You can't anyway, since nobody is going to lend it to you without a good reason to believe you'll give it back.

Fake Reductionism

Rixie12y100

The thing abut reductionists is that they think they're right.

Therefore, anti-reductionists are wrong.

Which means that anti-reductionists either don't have all the facts, or are choosing to ignore the facts, or are succumbing to other belief-in-belief-type biases.

When you're talking about someone you know to be wrong, the kindest thing that you can say about them is that they didn't have all their facts right.

Arguing "By Definition"

Rixie12y00

Hey, sorry, just an unrelated question here, but:

Is The Feynman Lectures on Physics still worth reading?

0Shmi12y

Not as a primary textbook, but as a supplemental text, exploring some of the ideas skipped or glossed over in the standard texts.

0A1987dM12y

Yes, even though some of the stuff there (e.g. about elementary particles) is outdated.

Lost Purposes

Rixie12y20

When I was very young I was also very curious, but I sated my curiosity by telling myself that I would know it all when I was grown up. It wasn't my problem to be curious about these things, other people were handling them. Maybe Eliezer's classmates were thinking that this didn't really make sense, but they trusted the adults enough to do it anyways. Like how a lit lightbulb turns less mysterious and wonderful when you know that someone else already knows the scientific reason for it. All you need to do is follow the instructions and you'll get light.

"Science" as Curiosity-Stopper

Rixie12y10

Maybe humans do this because if we know that someone else knows the answer to the question, it's not our problem anymore, we can safely ignore it and work on other things. Maybe if there were an elephant trainer standing next to the elephant in your living room (maybe not your living room, otherwise you'd be worried about property damage and such) holding an elephant leash and saying "Don't worry, I got this," you'd be content to walk on by if you'd seen green elephants before and had something else that you needed to be doing.

I suppose that in the "ancestral environment", if someone else already knows how to solve the problem, you can safely ignore it.

Making History Available

Rixie12y60

Eliezer, I love how you can write passionately and poetically about a topic that many people consider stone cold. It really shows how important this all is to you, and it's much more fun to read.

I'm so glad that you lived your life the way you did and made the mistakes you did and became the person that you are, because if you didn't have your background and your skill set I might never have learned about rationality or Bayes' theorem, or read the best fan fiction there is.

Thank you so much for being you, it makes being us just that much better.

Hindsight Devalues Science

Rixie12y10

Maybe because Southeners were used to hot weather and didn't put any real effort into actively combatting the hot weather the way Northeners had to?

1Portia2y

Same. I found four of the findings surprising (because they were either non-obvious, or a bit strange/implausible - education generally makes you more resilient, and why would black people want to hang out with racists who learned the wrong handling lessons, and while being discriminated against makes you less confident to ask for a promotion, you are likely to want it more until you see this working out badly for group members), but I 100 % bought the Southerners dealing better with the heat, and am deeply baffled that they did not. You'd expect them to have a better biological resistance through prior hardening, more awareness of the danger, and more importantly, more knowledge on what to do. When we had a heat wave in Northern Europe, we had immense loss of life, despite the fact that such temperatures are regularly exceeded in other countries without such consequences - because people had no idea that heat was dangerous, or how to deal with it. They had no AC installed. They did not know whether to keep windows open or closed. They did not adjust their water and salt intake. They had no adequate clothing. They had an imperfect understanding of ventilation and shade. They did not recognise signs of heat stroke or low blood pressure. They weren't concerned for babies and elderly people. They did not own sun screen. Their work hours were set to work through lunch time. Etc. etc. Even if I were more scared of the tropical heat as a Northener, I would still bet on Southeners doing much better. Then again, maybe the high humidity turned it into an environment that acted differently than expected, so that the people learning about a new environment learned the right lessons, while those who thought it was familiar already were mal-adapted in some ways, so it evened out?

How to Convince Me That 2 + 2 = 3

Rixie12y70

I read about a study like that, in which Christians prayed for people to recover from cancer. There was barely any difference between the patients that weren't prayed for, the patients that were prayed for and knee that they were being prayed for, and the patients that didn't know that they were being prayed for.

3Tintinnabulation10y

I recall the same study - and I seem to remember that the patients who knew they were being prayed for did a bit worse.

Evaluability (And Cheap Holiday Shopping)

Rixie12y10

I'm collecting quotes to help me remember all the things that I should be remembering in order to overcome bias, and I'm wondering if someone has one for the sub-sequence on the Affect Heuristic.

A Fable of Science and Politics

Rixie12y00

Maybe there could be a paragraph in a box or something at the bottom of each post that contains the "take home" lesson for each post, to make it easier for people who are trying to review.

-1RPMcMurphy10y

Nice commentary. It reminds me of "The Machine Stops" by E. M. Forster. Both Forster's story and this parable are very interesting as analogies to our own society. Of course, analogies, sequences, and parables sometimes break down because they lose connection to material reality (ungrounded abstraction). Additionally, the way individual humans see patterns in reality varies quite a bit from individual to individual. (And, I dare say, there are more anti-green-discussion and anti-blue-comments on this and other fora as a result of biological determination, rather than any inherent merit or feature of their anti-debate political positions.) Being "above discussion" seems to me to be "above thought," even if that thought is rightfully noted as typically being "of poor quality" due to the majority of humanity's incapacity for philosophy. All goals of a suitably intelligent mind are "political," because the individual mind that is highly intelligent rapidly conquers its own domain and achieves its personal goals. At that point, such a dominant mind becomes a "statesman" and concerns itself with its surrounding environment, and its impact on others. This isn't "required," but it is natural, and nature tends to win. Look at "politics" now, it's still "might makes right." The DEA, ATF, and other alphabet-soup agencies simply don't follow the common law. (The common law requires a "corpus delicti," due process, etc.) It's "natural" for one reason: there's no reason not to build gardens instead of battlefields, and battlefields are the default position of low and venal sociopathic intelligences. Which does a powerful and benevolent mind build? Gardens with useful plants, animals, bacteria, and fungi (including Cannabis indica, sativa, and ruderalis; Erythroxylum coca; Papaver somniferum; Psilocybe cubensis, mexicana, cyanescens; millions of kinds of locality-tailored bacteria; etc.) Many of the most useful plants in a human-centric garden are "prohibited." Not only that, th

1[anonymous]12y

Hi Rixie, You can find a list of all Less Wrong (Main) posts here. From that page, you can click on a link for a sub-page for posts from a specific year, and on that sub-page, there is a link to summaries for posts from that year. Most of Eliezer's posts from the original sequences, if not all of them, have summaries that can you can use to review. Best, James :-)

Deviant argumentation regarding Monty Hall problem

Rixie12y00

I don't understand how the answer could be anything but 50/50.
I know the right answer, but if you deleted it from my brain I never would have figured it out.
I guess I'm looking for an explanation that isn't just following through examples from every scenario.
Does an explanation like that exist?

1TimS12y

Sure. Think of things in terms of distributed probability mass. I think we all find in intuitive that each door starts at 1/3 of the probability mass. So you chose a door, and the host opens another to reveal no_prize. Once the door was opened, the probability of that door goes to zero. And that probability mass must go somewhere because probability must sum to 1. So far, so good. Depending on one's intuitions about probability, the 1/3 mass from the wrong door either (a) splits between the remaining closed doors, or (b) stays together so that some door is now has 2/3 mass. So which is it? Imagine a small modification to the procedure. Before the no_prize door is opened, a curtain is closed that covers the unchosen doors. If this curtain was closed before any door was chosen, 2/3 chance the prize is behind the curtain. This is still true if the curtain is only closed after you choose a door. Once the curtain is closed, the no_prize door is opened. But you still don't know curtain-door is open. From your POV, the curtain is still 2/3 likely to include the prize door. Now imagine a bystander walks in at this point, knowing nothing about the game. She hears the host ask if you want the door or the curtain. If she thinks the game is fair, she things you have a 50-50 chance. But you know more information that the bystander - all that curtain-covers-two-doors stuff. It is this knowledge that justifies the difference between your probability estimate and the bystander's estimate. ---------------------------------------- Perhaps this story will help: Imagine a criminal defendant, represented by a lawyer. The lawyer says, "If we win the motion, your case will be dismissed. Otherwise, you will be convicted." Defendant: "So, I have a 50-50 chance." Lawyer: "Absolutely not. The motion is totally lacking in legal and factual merit. There's a 1% chance that the judge will be so confused that the motion will be granted." The lawyer's knowledge of the decision mechanism allo

Qualitatively Confused

Rixie12y00

I was rereading some of the core sequences and I came across this:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/gz/policy_debates_should_not_appear_onesided/

3orthonormal12y

Important quote from that article:

3CCC12y

I don't see the theism/atheism debate as a policy debate. There is a factual question underlying it, and that factual question is "does God exist?" I find it very hard to imagine a universe where the answer to that question is neither 'yes' nor 'no'.

Qualitatively Confused

Rixie12y30

It's not just that there's overwhelming support for their side, it's that there is only support for their side, and this happens on both sides.

0CCC12y

That's surprising. I'd expect at least some of them to at least address the arguments of the other side.

37 Ways That Words Can Be Wrong

Rixie12y130

Oh, the irony.

It doesn't matter that Eliezer defined the word "wrong" in a different way than you. You still understand what he means, there's no point to redefining "wrong" in this case.

Anybody want to join a Math Club?

Rixie12y30

How about everyone here who is at High School age message me, and that will be our group. I feel like we would be able to work better with people who were closer in age.

Of course, once you get older it doesn't matter as much, I think, but when your education is still in progress, we might have to do more background research.

P.S. I'm 14, and I would say that I'm turning 15 in 2 months but that sounds even more childish than just leaving it at "I'm 14". In any case, I think I'm capable enough of compiling a list, and what comes after will come after.

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

0Baeo_Maltinsky12y

Anybody want to join a Math Club?

Rixie12y00

Yeah, I agree.

I think that we should make a list of everyone who wants to join, split them into groups of not more than 10 based on age, and every mini-group will decide what they want to learn and go at a pace that matches their background and ability.

Anybody want to join a Math Club?

Rixie12y10

I was wondering about the ages of all the people who want to start this club.

Not that age really matters, I just wanted to know what kinds of people we have here.

How about we give our ages in a 10 year range?

0Baeo_Maltinsky12y

0smoofra12y

I'm 32.

The Useful Idea of Truth

Rixie12y10

No, it's just that FluffyC used slashes to indicate that the word in the middle was to be italisized, so she probably hadn't read the help section, and I thought that reading the help section would, well, help FluffyC.

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

The Useful Idea of Truth

Rixie12y20

Thank you! Your post helped me finally to understand what it was that I found so dissatisfying with the way I'm being taught chemistry. I'm not sure right now what I can do to remedy this, but thank you for helping me come to the realization.

The Useful Idea of Truth

Rixie12y10

Press the Show help button to figure out how to italisize and bold and all that.

0Desrtopa12y

Was this intended to be a response to a different comment?

The Useful Idea of Truth

Rixie12y-40

I don't think that the fact that everyone having a different checklist is the point. In this perfect, hypothetical world, everyone has the same checklist.

I think that the point is that the checklist is meaningless, like having a literary genre called y-ism and having "The letter 'y' constitutes 1/26th of the text" on the checklist.

Even if we can identify y-ism with our senses, the distinction is doesn't "mean" anything. It has zero application outside of the world of y-ism. It floats.

Excluding the Supernatural

Rixie12y00

I'm sorry for posting such a pointless comment, but how do we change how the comments are sorted? I can see a Sort By: Old thing above the comments, but nothing happens when I click on it. Is there somewhere I can change settings, or something?
Thank you.

3TheOtherDave12y

I think what's going on here is that older posts simply don't have this feature enabled, I assume because the feature depends on the comments having been stored in a particular way. Recent posts have a "Sort By: " menu there.

Anybody want to join a Math Club?

Rixie12y30

And here. Maybe we could start with probability theory, seeing as how that seems to be really central to this site.

0bsterrett12y

I have a copy of Probability Theory, but I've never made a solid effort to go through it. I'd love to commit to a group reading. Definitely interested.

1atucker12y

Same. I'd be interested in trying this for a bit starting after mid-May.

Your Strength as a Rationalist

Rixie12y-20

It matters why "B sounds more plausible to your mind." If it's because you remembered a new fact, or if you reworked the problem and came out with B, change the answer (after checking that your work was correct and everything.) The many multiple choice tests are written so that there is one right answer, one wrong answer, and two plausible-sounding answers, so you shouldn't change an answer just because B is starting to sound plausible.

1Vaniver12y

There are two modes of reasoning that are useful that I'd like to briefly discuss: inside view, and outside view. Inside view uses models with small reach / high specificity. Outside view uses models with large reach / high generality. Inside view arguments are typically easier to articulate, and thus often more convincing, but there are often many reasons to prefer outside view arguments. (Generally speaking, there are classes of decisions where inside view estimates are likely to be systematically biased, and so using the outside view is better.) When wondering whether to switch an answer, the inside view recommends estimating which answer is better. The outside view recommends looking at the situation you're in- "when people have switched answers in the past, has it generally helped or hurt?". There are times when switching leads to the better result. But the trouble is that you need to know that ahead of time- and so, as you suggest, there may be reasons to switch that you can identify as strong reasons. But the decision whether to apply the inside or outside view (or whether you collect enough data to increase the specificity of your outside view approach) is itself a decision you have to make correctly, which you probably want to use the outside view to track, rather than just trusting your internal assessment at the time.

GAZP vs. GLUT

Rixie12y-40

"No, no!" says the philosopher. "In the thought experiment, they aren't randomly generating lots of GLUTs, and then using a conscious algorithm to pick out one GLUT that seems humanlike! I am specifying that, in this thought experiment, they reach into the inconceivably vast GLUT bin, and by pure chance pull out a GLUT that is identical to a human brain's inputs and outputs! There! I've got you cornered now! You can't play Follow-The-Improbability any further!"

In my (limited) understanding of the way the universe began, it was a... (read more)

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

Zombie Responses

Rixie12y-20

Could someone please tell me why that comment was voted down?

I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything, I just want to know.

8OrphanWilde12y

Shortly, the standard for comments here is pretty high. (Well, not really, but compared to the rest of the internet, it is.) There's no one rule for upvoting or downvoting, and a substantial number of people here will downvote anything they don't see as contributing to the site. I would guess that's why your comment was downvoted. Try not to take downvotes personally. (By the same token, don't take upvotes personally, either.) In general, the rule you should try to follow (I certainly have trouble following it) is not to comment just to express your thoughts - use comments to communicate specific ideas which you think other people will want to read. Be cautious with humor - it has a high likelihood of being misinterpreted, and tastes in humor vary pretty wildly. (If you see the potential for an -awesome- joke, however, by all means go for it.) To go into territory which will probably push my own comment into the negative territory (seriously, don't worry too much about that), there are a few people here who are -really- annoyed by the influx of new users from HPMoR readers who aren't accustomed to the community yet who seem intent on using downvoting to try to rectify the problem. There are a lot of unwritten rules here, and it will take some time to figure them out. Before you write a comment, before you even respond to a comment directed at you, ask yourself if you have something that at least 20% of the people here will want to read - don't write your comments to the person you're responding to, write them to the site at large (this is something I learned a long time ago, and it serves me well when I keep it in mind). When you respond to somebody, most of the serious readers on LessWrong will see it - if it's not a personal message, it's not a personal communication. A lot of people here, including me, spend way more time than is healthy refreshing the comment stream. You're writing for an audience, not a conversation. It's actually a very forgiving audience

Explaining vs. Explaining Away

Rixie12y10

Could someone please explain to me why this is downvoted?

I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything, and the comment above was sincere.

I just want to know what I said wrong.

Thank you.

8Qiaochu_Yuan12y

Well, you're basically asking people to supply you with cached thoughts, and this is not ideal. Even less charitably, you're asking people to supply you with soldiers, and that's not great either. Also, I think newcomers, and possibly just everyone, should refrain from using the word "rationalist." At this stage, and possibly just all the time, it excessively encourages belief as attire.

Explaining vs. Explaining Away

Rixie12y-20

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

1CronoDAS12y

Well, there is The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences, but I've never tried to actually read any of it... http://cryptome.org/2013/01/aaron-swartz/MIT-Cognitive-Sciences.pdf

Explaining vs. Explaining Away

[+]Rixie12y-60

9Qiaochu_Yuan12y

Chess playing software runs an algorithm designed to play chess. It may be good at playing chess, but it probably isn't optimal: remember that until fairly recently top grandmasters could still beat top chess software. Humans run another algorithm designed to pass on genes. It may be good at passing on genes, but it probably isn't optimal; remember that evolutions are stupid. Moreover, the algorithm that governs humans behavior is no longer working in the environment in which it evolved, whereas chess playing software has the benefit of only needing to work in the environment for which it was designed. Ask chess playing software to play checkers and you'll get nonsense.

5NancyLebovitz12y

Your chess playing software must make the decision which is most likely to win the game according to some algorithm (and assuming no computer glitches). Humans have plentiful reasons to make mistakes of kinds that computers don't, but that doesn't mean computers making the best possible moves.

Explaining vs. Explaining Away

Rixie12y-10

That doesn't mean that we can't take joy in what is not merely real, nor that we should be delighted everytime we see the bus stopping at the bus stop.

There are four types of things in the world:

Things that are real and uninteresting.
Things that are real and interesting.
Things that are unreal and uninteresting.
Things that are unreal and interesting.

I assume that no one would invent something unreal and uninteresting, so that leaves us with three categories.

In this article, Eliezer argues that the category real and interesting exists.
He doe... (read more)

0arundelo12y

Formatting help: a list must be its own paragraph.

Explaining vs. Explaining Away

Rixie12y-10

Why do I think I have free will?
I think I have free will because I tell my hand to type and it types.
And why do I think that that was my own free will and not somebody or something else's?
Wait, what do I even mean when I say "free will"?
I mean that I could do whatever I wanted to.
And what controls what I "want" to do? Is it me or something/one else?

Why do I think that I control my own thoughts?
My thoughts seem instantaneous, maybe I don't control my own thoughts.
I can say things without thinking about it beforehand, sometimes I agoniz... (read more)

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

9TheOtherDave12y

Well, if that's what you mean, then you certainly don't have free will, at least not if you're anything like me. There's lots of things I've wanted to do in my life that I haven't been able to do. So, if that's really what you mean by "free will", I submit to you that not only do you not have this thing, you don't even feel like you have this thing. Conversely, if you're talking about something you do feel like you have, then your description of what it is is flawed, and it might be helpful to return to the question of what you mean. Also, you may want to ask why is this an interesting question? What would depend on you having free will, or not having it? Why should anyone care? You might also find it useful to google "compatibilism".

-2Rixie12y

Why do humans think that they have free will? What kind of situation would favour humans who thought that they had free will over humans who didn't? Will to survive? No, that's not the right question, I'm off track. I'm drawing a complete blank. What is there in my head that makes it so that I think I have free will? I keep thinking in circles. I'm trying to differentiate the answer of this question from the answer of the question "Why do I think I have free will?", but every time I get close there is litterally a giant blank, I don't think I know enough about how human brains work in the first place in order to answer this question. Oh, no, here we go: Why do I think that I don't know enough about how my mind works to answer this question? I live in it, after all. Well, I can't answer the question, that seems like ample proof to me, although it might not be. I think that I could work out everything I needed to know given enough time, but why start from scratch when other great minds have done the work for you? Can anyone direct me to some ressources I can use to better understand the internal algorithms of the human mind please?

Explaining vs. Explaining Away

Rixie12y-20

It's still possible to have a little bit of respect for people who are obviously wrong.

I read this book once about how when we're looking at other people who we know are wrong we have to see their ignorence and try to solve it instead of making them into the enemy. We have to see the disease behind the person.

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

Qualitatively Confused

Rixie12y-30

Well, theology isn't science. If you do an experiment and the result goes against your hypothesis, your hypothosis is false, period. It's not necissarily like that when people are arguing with logic instead of experiments. No one on either side would make an argument that wasn't logically correct. I've read both Christian and Atheist material that make a lot of sense sense, although I realize now that I should probably review them because that was before I discovered Less Wrong. There are also plenty of intelligent people who have looked at all the eviden... (read more)

4Viliam_Bur12y

Seems to me the wrong thing is exactly that experiments are not allowed in the debate. Leaving out the voice of reality, all we are left with are the voices of humans. And humans are well known liars.

Explaining vs. Explaining Away

Rixie12y-30

I'm not sure if I'm right about this, but to me, calling Eliezer Yudkowsky "The Master" smacks of cult.

Yes it sounds cool and at first I was inclined to say that it was a good idea, but the reason it's so appealing is that it would be something special that only us Less Wrong rationalists would do, it would strenghten our group identity and push everyone else that much further away.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/lv/every_cause_wants_to_be_a_cult/

Maybe we could call him Mr. Yudkowsky, although that just reminds me of a certain green monster from Monster'... (read more)

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

orthonormal12y120

I'm not sure if I'm right about this, but to me, calling Eliezer Yudkowsky "The Master" smacks of cult.

It's a joke...

The only reason I could see to call EY something like "The Master" is to make him feel incredibly awkward. Anyone who sees him in person tomorrow is encouraged to try this.

6Desrtopa12y

I've never seen him complain when other posters address him as Eliezer.

1satt12y

One way to look at it: how would you refer to other posters here?

6A1987dM12y

I usually use “EY” -- I normally use full names or usernames (which in this case coincide, modulo a space/underscore) for people who I've never met in meatspace but who are on the same site as me, but his is so long and I am so lazy.

Explaining vs. Explaining Away

Rixie12y-40

Can someone tell me, or is there a list somewhere, "all the other things that rationalists are supposed to say on such occasions"?

I find that having bits that come to mind automatically in certain situations really helps me to go about thinking in the right way (or at least a way that's less wrong.)

1Rixie12y

Could someone please explain to me why this is downvoted? I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything, and the comment above was sincere. I just want to know what I said wrong. Thank you.

Zombie Responses

Rixie12y-20

Sounds like zombies to me. Does the robot know he's a robot?

-2Rixie12y

Could someone please tell me why that comment was voted down? I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything, I just want to know.

-1MugaSofer12y

Not if you can read his mind. Of course, Azimov robots are bound by the Three Laws, so presumably there would be a difference ... I think.

Initiation Ceremony

Rixie12y-20

Ha, I'm still reduced to drawing little stars on a piece of paper and circling them into different groups.

Man I need to work on this thing.

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

Qualitatively Confused

Rixie12y10

I'm not sure how strict is strict, but maybe something that is trying to be unbiased. A lot of websites present both sides of the story, and then logically conclude that their side is the winner, 100 percent of the time.

And I used Atheism/Christianity because I was born a Christian and I think that Atheism is the only real, um, threat, let's say, to my staying a Christian.

Although, I havn't actually tried to research anything else, I realize.

5Vmax5y

I am all too aware that I am 7 years late to this party, but coincidentally enough my beliefs from that time may fit the bill. I too was born into a Christian family. Although I did not go to church regularly due to my parents' work, I was still exposed to religion a lot. My family was always happy to tell me about what they believed. I was told Bible stories since I was in diapers, and I began reading them myself soon after. I was even a huge fan of VeggieTales (and maybe I still am). Yet, as far back as I can remember (I think my diaries can testify I was as young as 6 or 7) I put God into the same bin as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. I can't recall my exact line of reasoning, but it was probably because all three consisted of fantastic tales full of morals, and all big kids knew the latter two were fake, so why not the first? I don't remember ever being exposed to atheists or their beliefs, but I do remember the moment I realized all these people really DID believe in God. I remember the shock. All those years I had thought they were pretending to believe in God like they still pretended Santa came every year. Everyone knows Santa is a big fake, but apparently the same idea didn't seem to apply to the other big bearded guy who makes miracles. I suppose I am what could be considered an innocent atheist. I chose my side on the Christianity/Atheism war long before I was even aware of such a dividing line. I may write a full post on this to include further details and context. Because even after years of self reflection (honestly not too impressive since I'm currently a young adult) I can still agree with my younger self's conclusion.

2CCC12y

I would be very surprised (and immediately suspicious) to find a website that didn't. People like to be right. If someone does a lot of research, writes up an article, and comes up with what appears to be overwhelming support for one side or the other, then they will begin to identify with their side. If that was the side they started with, then they would present an article along the lines of "Why Is Correct". If that was not the side they started with, then they would present an article along the lines of "Why I Converted To ". If they don't come up with overwhelming support for one side or another, then I'd imagine they'd either claim that there is no strong evidence against their side, or write up an article in support of agnosticism.

0gwern12y

If you presented both sides of an issue, concluding the other side was right, how would you then conclude your side is the winner?

Desrtopa12y110

Well, Common Sense Atheism is a resource by a respected member here who documented his extensive investigations into theology, philosophy and so on, which he started as a devout Christian and finished as an atheist.

Unequally Yoked is a blog coming from the opposite end, someone familiar with the language of rationality who started out as an atheist and ended up as a theist.

I don't actually know where Leah (the author of the latter) archives her writings on the process of her conversion; I've really only read Yvain's commentary on them, but she's a member... (read more)

Initiation Ceremony

Rixie12y20

Oh my gosh but I actually am stunned speechless.

I can't even begin to express the way I feel right now, Eliezer Yudkowsky, my friend, you are in possesion of a rare and powerful gift!

2irrational11y

It only goes to show how we are all susceptible to power of stories, rather than able to examine them dispassionately, like a rationalist presumably should.

Amazing Breakthrough Day: April 1st

Rixie12y20

Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes!!!

Be totally serious about this! Spread it around the internet! This is such an amazing idea! Next April Fool's day is going to be the best one ever!

Gosh, I'm so ridiculously excited no one's even going to take me seriously.

Reductionism

Rixie12y10

This website is doing amazing things to the way I think every day, as well as occasionally making me die of laughter.

Thank you, Eliezer!

1wedrifid12y

But you got better.

Qualitatively Confused

Rixie12y10

I can testify to that.

Say, does anyone know where I can find unbiased information on the whole Christianity/Atheism thing?

0DimitriK10y

You might (with difficulty) find an unbiased investigation into theism vs atheism

-3fractalman12y

"unbiased", "christianity/athiesm"... ok, I probably shouldn't be laughing, but...well, I am laughing.

0JohnWittle12y

I don't think there is ever a direct refutation of religion in the Sequences, but if you read all of them, you will find yourself much better equipped to think about the relevant questions on your own. EY is himself an Atheist, obviously, but each article in the Sequences can stand upon its own merit in reality, regardless of whether they were written by an atheist or not. Since EY assumes atheism, you might run across a couple examples where he assumes the reader is an atheist, but since his goal is not to convince you to be an atheist, but rather, to be aware of how to properly examine reality, I think you'd best start off clicking ‘Sequences" at the top right of the website.

3Manfred12y

"Unbiased" is a tricky word to use here, because typically it just means a high-quality, reliable source. But what I think you're looking for is a source that is high quality but intentionally resists drawing conclusions even when someone trying to be accurate would do that - it leaves you, the reader, to do the conclusion-drawing as much as possible (perhaps at the cost of reliability, like a sorcerer who speaks only in riddles). Certain history books are the only sources I've thought of that really do this.

-4MugaSofer12y

No. Anyone who tells you they can is themself biased. You can tell in which direction by reading the conclusion of whatever they recommend.

8Desrtopa12y

How strict are your criteria for "unbiased?" Some writers take more impartial approaches than others, but strict apatheists are unlikely to bother doing comprehensive analyses of the evidence for or against religions. Side note: if you're trying to excise bias in your own thinking, it's worth stopping to ask yourself why you would frame the question as a dichotomy between Christianity and atheism in the first place.